| |||||||||||||
About 2.6.29.5-rt22-tirqonly patch and the exact test scenario.About 2.6.29.5-rt22-tirqonly patch and the exact test scenario.Posted Sep 29, 2009 9:28 UTC (Tue) by leemgs (subscriber, #24528)Parent article: The realtime preemption mini-summit
I think that this is good information for realtime developers.
Can I get 2.6.29.5-rt22-tirqonly patch and the exact test scenario about this result among 2.6.29.5 and 2.6.29.5-rt22 and 2.6.29.5-rt22-tirqonly by Darren Hart and and John Stultz?
I can just find test result at
(Log in to post comments)
About 2.6.29.5-rt22-tirqonly patch and the exact test scenario. Posted Sep 29, 2009 23:20 UTC (Tue) by jstultz (subscriber, #212) [Link]
Yea, sorry, the chart wasn't originally intended to be distributed as far as it has, so I wasn't as rigorous with the data as I should have been.
2.6.29.5-rt22-tirqonly is the same as 2.6.29.5-rt22 with CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT disabled (CONFIG_PREEMPT is used instead).
I booted with maxcpus=$NP for each cpu point, and with dbench-3.04, ran:
About 2.6.29.5-rt22-tirqonly patch and the exact test scenario. Posted Oct 4, 2009 13:59 UTC (Sun) by dvhart (guest, #19636) [Link]
That isn't a patch, it's just a .config setting. Grab the 2.6.29-rt22 patches (see Download on rt.wiki.kernel.org) and set CONFIG_PREEMPT (not CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT) and enable hard and soft threaded irq's to yes. As for the exact test scenario, I don't have the details, but running dbench is fairly straightforward and will easily reproduce these results. Ingo did so with a simple 10 second run during discussions at the rt-summit.
|
|||||||||||||
